Comments on the SilverBack Proposal

 Please be respectful and honest. Messages are approved BEFORE posting. We will allow both sides of the issue provided you are respectful and honest. Note: Email addresses are mangled so that they must be fixed to use. This is to stop Spam machines. Return often to see other messages. SilverBack and SCAF : Search
There are now 5 messages in our guestbook.
Viewing messages 1 to 5.
Your name (required)
Your message (required)
Your Location? (required)
Your email address (required)
Private message (when checked, message will not appear in guestbook)

russ heagle | Email
my family has owned property on Porpoise Bay since about 1970. Guess its a good thing nobody raised as big a squak when Sandy Hook was being developed.or alot f you people wouldn't be here. (Did you know Porpoise Bay Road used to be gravel, and the bridge over Grey Creek was a log bridge. Remeber Crowston's campground and how they leveled the trees and ruined a world famous sea run cutthroat trout fishing beach to build few houses. But this time its different because you're already here.
9 October 2006 - seattle,wa
Webmaster comments   Good points in general BUT we are not aware of anyone speaking out against any development. The Terraces one was approved by most after the proponent engaged in meaningful dialogue and changes to make it more suitable to Sechelt. Many see a golf course with real residential as a good use of the land but few see a time share hotel and 1700 home density with no road improvements (Porposie Bay ain't gravel anymore!)as fitting the image. Besides, if Sandy Hook was so bad why should we repeat the mistakes?
ron nelson | Email
I want to say 'thank you' to you folks. This is a great site with a wealth of info. I'm new to the Silverback debate and you helped me see the history and the issues. I can also see all the work you've done. Wow. Keep it up! I'll be calling on Monday to see how I can help. Thank you.
24 September 2006 - Sechelt
ron nelson | Email
This whole development scares the heck out of me. 1600 units, 6-12 story towers, short term rentals and time share, absentee owners with local voting rights? More pressure on water, roads, ferries and other infrastructure? The residents of Sechelt have absolutely nothing to gain from this. Once again we see an ambitious developer and a pro-growth council. The advisory planning committee recommended against it, as have the vast majority of citizens. Once again our District Council will not listen. What made us vote for these guys?
23 September 2006 - Sechelt
Martin | Email
So, if the full time occupancy is 25% and maximum will be 50% (according to meeting) why don't they just build half of the proposed developement??
22 September 2006 - Sechelt
Bob D'Arcy | Email
I have put this up to hopefully encourage the community to make suggestions for this project. The content may be put before council or guide the work of SCAF.
15 September 2006 - Sandy Hook
You can search this guestbook by:
Message : - Name : - All :
Please type some text:
Your message may not appear for a day or so.

Guestbook by active-scripts.net